Many at the moment see LR as a cheap alternative to PS and wish for it to remain that way.

That may very well be true, I don't know. I tend to look at Lr for what I believe it was intended to be...A tool for photographers to edit images/convert from RAW, and an asset management program. Personally I think it does both of those very well as is, in ways...much better than Ps ever did. That may not be technically true (better than Ps), but it is certainly geared toward those things that a PHOTOGRAPHER wants to do with their images. Ps on the other hand, covers a very wide gamut of image creation and/or manipulation. I think the balance you spoke of is just that, the line between actual photography vs. electronically created art. While Ps will do either, Lr focuses on the photography end of things.

While I use Ps from time to time, those needs are reduced to something like stitching images, or removing a distracting highway sign in an otherwise very nice image. Things that step outside the normal bounds of "photography", at least in my opinion. Sure there are tweaks I'd love to see, both on the asset management side as well as the development side. I don't need layers in Lr however, while I understand that some do. The edits in Lr are already not destructive, which is part of why layers came into existence isn't it? (perhaps I'm wrong about that). I recently got the set of Nik plugins, mainly for Silver Efex. I DO like the UPoint method of selection it is much easier/faster than an adjustment brush. Again that is above and beyond the normal photograph in my opinion (much like HDR), so I'm quite comfortable either moving to Ps or some plugin to accomplish those.

Things like I've mentioned above though; tools for noise control, keyword management, EXIF data field management, etc. are things that relate specifically to what I believe the core purpose of Lr is and was supposed to be. If I have to pay a little more for those things, so be it. It is still more useful (therefore more valuable) to me than Ps will be.

***Qualify all of the above as someone that started with Lr, as opposed to a convert from Ps, etc. to an application like Lr. I'm sure that gives me a different perspective from some.

And how much more would you be willing to spend when buying the next version? Nobody seems to think about that when they make multiple wishes. It all costs money with regards to research and implementation.

Adding features in itself costs nearly nothing in software products (just check the near infinite feature-list of many low-cost embedded products such as TVs). What seems to have a development cost (or, equivalently, enable companies to charge a higher price from the customer) is delivering a well thought-out product consisting of just the right (working) features without the distracting bloat.

I am fully aware that feature-creep would be the result if every single customer had their saying in the next version of Lightroom. With 3000 sliders, check-buttons, pop-ups and whatnot working in a non-intuitive manner (is this not a good description of Photoshop?). Thus, Adobe are no doubt aware that improving Lightroom is a balancing act between the stuff that customers claim that they want, what they are willing to pay for, and what will actually make them happy.

As a paying customer since version 1.0, I have opinions on how that balancing act should be carried out, no doubt biased by my own interests and background. I allow myself to be quite vocal about it, hoping that it pushes Adobe (ever so slightly) in a direction that would benefit me personally.

I do photography as a hobby, and spend some time in front of Lightroom. If I felt that I could do significantly more in less time, and/or get significantly better results, a price of $150 vs $300 would be of less importance.

I do feel that the price of Photoshop has less to do with the man-hours spent writing the code (at least the added code in the later versions), and more with the price that Adobe are able to get from a market where they have a practical monopoly, and where people have devoted careers to knowing every quirk of that particular application.

I am fully aware that feature-creep would be the result if every single customer had their saying in the next version of Lightroom. With 3000 sliders, check-buttons, pop-ups and whatnot working in a non-intuitive manner (is this not a good description of Photoshop?).

Nope. As someone who taught people how to use both programmes, I'd say people are equally baffled by each programme, albeit in different ways. But once you grok how each programme works then they are both very easy to use. The "difficulty" in using either is more to do with the myriad things you can do and choosing what to do and when to do it. This takes experience and practice time. Something not everyone can be bothered to do. This also raises an important issue. Ease of use, intuitive, simple are words oft used when taking about software, yet what people often miss is the fact that some tasks are actually complex and there is not necessarily a simple one button solution to do something and to get good at most things requires practice, lots of practice. And sometimes after using software for longer periods, you realise that the 'quirky/unintuitive' behaviours have a good reason to be there. Though sadly you also get software that gets more annoying as you realise its limitations/stupid behaviour. Also intuitive is all too often used instead of the word familiar, despite them having very different meanings. LR being a database and a parametric editor worked in a way most people were unfamiliar with, which caused confusion for many coming from bitmap photo editors as it worked in a quite unfamiliar way. Intuitive means easy to use even if unfamiliar with (in this case) the software.

I actually find some programmes that try and go the simple route end up being simplistic instead and can in fact be quite difficult to use. Particularly programmes that go the route of removing features/buttons in order to be simpler - which is such a lazy approach. One Apple is guilty of at times.

Diffraction effects I would think is close to or same as sharpen. I don't know if you can "gain" sharpness back from something that isn't there to begin with. Of course you can add sharpness, but this is different detail than getting a image without blade distortion. Try approaching your shoot to avoid diffraction, or use Sharpen, maybe clarity helps....

Nope. As someone who taught people how to use both programmes, I'd say people are equally baffled by each programme, albeit in different ways. But once you grok how each programme works then they are both very easy to use. The "difficulty" in using either is more to do with the myriad things you can do and choosing what to do and when to do it. This takes experience and practice time. Something not everyone can be bothered to do.

I have tested Photoshop a few times over the last decade. Every time I stopped once I had spent a couple of hours not being able to do _anything_. If I borrowed a camera and still hadn't made a single image after 2 hours I would probably return it. For me the process of learning has to have minor rewards along the way (such as the joy of seeing an image being gradually improved). I think this is the only reason that Microsoft Office was able to dominate its market in the 90s, people could write and print a simple letter within minutes without ever touching the advanced menus. The competitors had features geared towards the experienced users, but did not care much about soccer-mums.

Quote

This also raises an important issue. Ease of use, intuitive, simple are words oft used when taking about software, yet what people often miss is the fact that some tasks are actually complex and there is not necessarily a simple one button solution to do something and to get good at most things requires practice, lots of practice. And sometimes after using software for longer periods, you realise that the 'quirky/unintuitive' behaviours have a good reason to be there. Though sadly you also get software that gets more annoying as you realise its limitations/stupid behaviour.

Sure. User interaction is tough. The good thing about Lightroom (and many Apple products) is that they seem to have found a well-defined group of users and focus on helping them getting the job done with a minimum of effort. This means cutting sexy features that expert users and intern software developers might want to include.

Quote

Also intuitive is all too often used instead of the word familiar, despite them having very different meanings. LR being a database and a parametric editor worked in a way most people were unfamiliar with, which caused confusion for many coming from bitmap photo editors as it worked in a quite unfamiliar way. Intuitive means easy to use even if unfamiliar with (in this case) the software.

When writing software for MS Windows, one should adhere to that platforms conventions. Windows users will be familiar with certain items being in the "file" menu, and certain actions being available by right-clicking. Adobe sadly does not seem to think so.

Parametric editing is a major obstacle, but it seems that the rewards are sufficient that many users take the time to learn it.

Quote

I actually find some programmes that try and go the simple route end up being simplistic instead and can in fact be quite difficult to use. Particularly programmes that go the route of removing features/buttons in order to be simpler - which is such a lazy approach. One Apple is guilty of at times.

It is easy to add buttons or remove buttons. The hard part is helping a sufficiently large group of users do what they expect from a product (or what they will learn to appreciate) as effort-less as possible.

My Sony tv has a web-browser, dlna, installable apps, and what not. It also has 5 hdmi inputs, loudspeakers and loads of other stuff that I will never use. For me personally, it is clearly a case of putting in too many irrelevant features instead of focusing on the primary concern for me: image quality vs price. Now, I judged this particular tv to have very good image quality, but Sony could still have lowered their dev costs and sold it to me at higher margins (or, preferreably, diverted those resouces to the zoned backlighting system).

It seems that Adobe is focusing on adding new modules for rendering images in various forms. This is not the direction that I want them to go. I want:1)Very good raw development/editing (HDR stacking, pano stitching, simple multi-image layering)2)Very good database/search functions (I am convinced that it could be done more intuitive and flexible. Face detection? Focus/exposure quality estimation? I dont know...)3)Very good export/print to paper or jpeg (I have less gripes with this part)

This is (to my mind) the core Lightroom functionality that should work fast, intuitive and with very good results. Other modules are nice-to-haves that may detract from the overall experience.

I don't have enough time to see if it's been suggested already but i'd like to se LR5 only save 2 or 3 of the Catalog backups. Currently it saves them all.

Logged

An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:Please have a chew on my photos: http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets

I have tested Photoshop a few times over the last decade. Every time I stopped once I had spent a couple of hours not being able to do _anything_. If I borrowed a camera and still hadn't made a single image after 2 hours I would probably return it. For me the process of learning has to have minor rewards along the way (such as the joy of seeing an image being gradually improved).

Two things strike me there. A camera is pretty darn simple to use and if you already know how use one camera taking shots with another is not exactly hard. But imagine you never seen a camera before and someone handed you a film camera, would you have any idea what to do with it. As you wouldn't get any handy feedback from a screen on the back as to what it does. Chances are that you would end up fogging the film. Sometimes you need to be shown a few pointers or learn to understand a tool before you can use it.The other thing is that if you can spend several hours in PS and not be able to do anything, I would wonder if you have any computer skills/common sense at all. If nothing else you can go through the menu options [just like with 99% of all desktop programmes] and click on various items, many of which are straightforwardly labelled and obvious as to what they do. I learnt to use PS fairly easily and I had only just got my first computer and was still learning how to use that. And I reckon I could teach you the basics of PS [for photography] in a couple of hours.

Quote

I think this is the only reason that Microsoft Office was able to dominate its market in the 90s, people could write and print a simple letter within minutes without ever touching the advanced menus. The competitors had features geared towards the experienced users, but did not care much about soccer-mums.Sure. User interaction is tough.

And yet MS drastically changed the MS Office interface a few years back as they realised it didn't work very well.

Quote

The good thing about Lightroom (and many Apple products) is that they seem to have found a well-defined group of users and focus on helping them getting the job done with a minimum of effort. This means cutting sexy features that expert users and intern software developers might want to include.

Except PS is a programme for experts not beginners and LR is full of tools for the expert user, a different set of tools though. You now seem to be complaining PS isn't iPhoto.

Quote

When writing software for MS Windows, one should adhere to that platforms conventions. Windows users will be familiar with certain items being in the "file" menu, and certain actions being available by right-clicking. Adobe sadly does not seem to think so.

Funny as I use right click to access Adobe features all the time and Adobe does have the usual suspects in the File menu, plus some others that are specific to the individual programme. Adobe are pretty darn good at adhering to platform conventions whilst maintaining a balancing act in that people often work on both Macs + PCs as consistency of say PS between platforms is also important.

Quote

My Sony tv has a web-browser, dlna, installable apps, and what not. It also has 5 hdmi inputs, loudspeakers and loads of other stuff that I will never use. For me personally, it is clearly a case of putting in too many irrelevant features instead of focusing on the primary concern for me: image quality vs price. Now, I judged this particular tv to have very good image quality, but Sony could still have lowered their dev costs and sold it to me at higher margins (or, preferreably, diverted those resouces to the zoned backlighting system).

Psst here's a secret. Other people also use TVs and have different requirements to you and those features may be important to them. I once saw a reviewer dismiss a product because of a particular feature - I actually bought that product specifically for that feature. If a products has all the features you require, just ignore the ones you do not need. If you require products that have high quality and very few 'features' buy audiophile gear or equivalent audiovisual kit.

Quote

It seems that Adobe is focusing on adding new modules for rendering images in various forms. This is not the direction that I want them to go. I want:1)Very good raw development/editing (HDR stacking, pano stitching, simple multi-image layering)2)Very good database/search functions (I am convinced that it could be done more intuitive and flexible. Face detection? Focus/exposure quality estimation? I dont know...)3)Very good export/print to paper or jpeg (I have less gripes with this part)

This is (to my mind) the core Lightroom functionality that should work fast, intuitive and with very good results. Other modules are nice-to-haves that may detract from the overall experience.

1) LR's raw processing is constantly improving and now you are now asking LR to do Photoshop work which is very easy to do. In fact you can even do all of those requests from LR with a simple right click on a selection of images and they'll appear in PS all ready to merge/hdr etc. Simples!2) Uh, good search is one of LR's major selling points.3) Exporting from LR is already pretty awesome.

I have an MSc in electronics engineering, and I work as a dsp/software developer.

And yet you you cannot do anything to an image in Photoshop after several hours playing around. Plus you bizarrely [and incorrectly] claim Adobe doesn't follow the basic Windows paradigms such as menus and right click functionality as well as requesting features already present in LR/PS.Sounds more like someone with no computer skills whatsoever.

In your experience as a tutor, does insults make it easier to win your audience?

You claim to have tried to use Photoshop for two hours and not achieved anything ?In other posts here you give the impression that you have a basic understanding of digital photography. So why can you achieve nothing in Photoshop ?

Don't be surprised if people come back with insults if you make gross exaggerations and false claims here.

You claim to have tried to use Photoshop for two hours and not achieved anything ?In other posts here you give the impression that you have a basic understanding of digital photography. So why can you achieve nothing in Photoshop ?

Sure, I managed to pull some sliders, open and close some pop-ups. Does that count as "anything"? I did not manage to do anything photographically meaningful to the image that I had loaded.

With Lightroom I was able to import some images and pull sliders to see brightness changes within minutes. With MATLAB I was able to calculate the FFT of a general vector within 30 minutes.

Quote

Don't be surprised if people come back with insults if you make gross exaggerations and false claims here.

So if _you_ believe that I am exaggerating you are free to throw personal insults?

Two things strike me there. A camera is pretty darn simple to use and if you already know how use one camera taking shots with another is not exactly hard. But imagine you never seen a camera before and someone handed you a film camera, would you have any idea what to do with it. As you wouldn't get any handy feedback from a screen on the back as to what it does. Chances are that you would end up fogging the film. Sometimes you need to be shown a few pointers or learn to understand a tool before you can use it.

I went from digital compact camera to my first DSLR. I would claim that there are some fundamental differences in how they work and how they interface with the user.

Quote

And yet MS drastically changed the MS Office interface a few years back as they realised it didn't work very well.

Do you have any references that "they realised it didn't work very well"? In what way does this refute my point?

Quote

Except PS is a programme for experts not beginners and LR is full of tools for the expert user, a different set of tools though.

Even programs for experts may benefit from user-friendliness.

Quote

You now seem to be complaining PS isn't iPhoto.

I have never used that application. I think it is great that Adobe has _some_ competition, though.

Quote

Adobe are pretty darn good at adhering to platform conventions whilst maintaining a balancing act in that people often work on both Macs + PCs as consistency of say PS between platforms is also important.

I believe that it is this balancing act that gets in the way of embracing the platform.

Quote

Psst here's a secret. Other people also use TVs and have different requirements to you and those features may be important to them. I once saw a reviewer dismiss a product because of a particular feature - I actually bought that product specifically for that feature.

I have never met a person who use the "smart tv" functionality. Heres a secret: sometimes manufacturers miss their market, and spend R&D money on something that noone wants.

Quote

If a products has all the features you require, just ignore the ones you do not need.

Feature-creep often affects the general usability, speed and security of a product.

Quote

If you require products that have high quality and very few 'features' buy audiophile gear or equivalent audiovisual kit.

"Audiophile" gear is usually for simple minds that believe in homeopathy and the like.

Quote

1) LR's raw processing is constantly improving and now you are now asking LR to do Photoshop work which is very easy to do. In fact you can even do all of those requests from LR with a simple right click on a selection of images and they'll appear in PS all ready to merge/hdr etc. Simples!

Did you read the thread title? "What are you wishing for in LR5 ?" Perhaps you thought that it read "What are you wishing for in LR5/CS7 ?"